Khalid Mohamed revisits Sai Paranjpye’s battle over Chashme Buddoor, exposing how India’s screenwriters continue struggling for copyright protection, institutional accountability, creative legitimacy, and meaningful legal support despite industry associations promising justice.

For decades, Indian screenwriters have remained the weakest stakeholders in the film industry’s creative hierarchy. While copyright law recognises authorship, the enforcement of writers’ moral and intellectual property rights has often depended less on institutional protection and more on individual resilience. The Screenwriters Association (the Film Writers Association until 2014) has frequently positioned itself as a neutral dispute-resolution body, yet several writers have publicly questioned its ability to provide timely and effective intervention. One of the most significant examples came from Padma Bhushan-winning filmmaker and screenwriter Sai Paranjpye, whose legal battle over David Dhawan’s 2013 remake of Chashme Buddoor became emblematic of a larger struggle: when associations lack enforceable powers, writers are often compelled to seek justice through the courts themselves. 

Unbeknownst to most, stalwart film writer and director Sai Paranjpye had appealed to the Screenwriters Association (SWA) to argue the case on her behalf against David Dhawan’s remake of her Chashme Buddoor.

A cult classic and a contested remake

The cult comedy classic had opened to rave reviews and houseful shows in 1981. As it turned out, Paranjpye, who objected to the remake, was left stranded at the last minute.

She had to take the matter to court on her own, with the help of lawyers who had tremendous regard for her track record and the ever-fresh laugh-raiser, which had featured Farooq Sheikh, Deepti Naval, Ravi Baswani, Rakesh Bedi and Saeed Jaffrey.

“The Film Writers Association not only proved to be useless,” Paranjpye said outspokenly. “I was assured by the top office-bearers of the Association that they would take care of everything. As a result, I lost out on valuable time, and had to go to court just a few days before the release of the remake on April 5, 2013.”  

The Screenwriters Association under scrutiny

The subject of the effectiveness of the Film Writers Association, renamed the Screenwriters Association (SWA) in 2014, was addressed to the spry Padma Bhushan awardee in the wake of the controversy which erupted over Cheat India, a film on scams in the education system starring Emraan Hashmi, which was scheduled to roll in July.  

The Delhi-based writer Dinesh Gautam and actor Imran Zaidi alleged that Cheat India was a rip-off of their script Marksheet (also to be launched in July). Reportedly, they were vexed by their appeal for redressal to the Screenwriters Association, which they described as “toothless.”  

On its part, the Screenwriters Association’s official stand was that it takes all complaints seriously and has strict protocols in place, asserting: “Knowing the seriousness of copyright issues, we make every effort not just to be transparent but also neutral, giving equal opportunity to both complainants and respondents to present their case. It is owing to the due diligence practised by SWA’s Dispute Settlement Committee that its intervention is taken seriously by the film and television industries. When cases adjudicated by SWA have gone to court, judges have asked for our report and have also upheld our decisions several times.”  

Sai Paranjpye’s legal battle for Chashme Buddoor

Paranjpye, while speaking specifically about her Chashme Buddoor experience, pointed out that the remake rights were formalised without so much as a by-your-leave by the film’s co-producer Jayshree Anand Makhija. The creative rights accruing to the writer were ignored, leaving her with no option but to appeal to Kamlesh Pandey, then Honorary General Secretary of the Association.

As the release date of the remake, produced by Viacom18 Motion Pictures and starring Ali Zafar, Siddharth, Divyendu Sharma, Taapsee Pannu and Rishi Kapoor, was nearing, Paranjpye was left in a quandary. “Nothing was happening,” she recalled. “I was even advised that I would have to handle the matter myself. Willy-nilly, I had to go to court. Fortunately, because of my well-wishers, justice was done.”

A warning for every screenwriter

Striking a cautionary note, she concluded, “I am not playing my seniority card at all. Or tarring the Association with one fell swoop of a brush. No writer whose claims have substance should go through what I did. Please understand that every writer—if he or she has a tenable case—should get a semblance of protection at the very least from the Association. Over time, film writers have been vulnerable. It’s for the sake of all writers whose intellectual property rights are endangered that I am speaking out today. Going to court is never a pleasant experience. But when push comes to shove, it has to be done.”